The condom conundrum

Here’s a trick question:

Which of the following is a grave sin and which is the lesser of two evils—murder with torture or murder without pain? For liberals opposed to the Catholic Church prohibition on contraception, it seemed something could be evil, but not sinful. At least that was how they apparently—or wishfully—understood Pope Benedict 16th’s remarks last week about condom use being “the lesser of two evils” compared with unprotected sex by an HIV-infected man. If there’s a will, there’s a why.

At least one newspaper headline declared that the Vatican had reversed its decades-old ban on condoms. Millions of the faithful were reportedly confused by the Holy Father’s comments, or the spin his words were given. And in Manila, proponents of the Reproductive Health Bill, which would widen access to artificial contraceptives, used the papal words to counter the anti-RH lobby mounted by Catholic Bishops.

Never mind that the Pope spoke only about condoms, not all contraceptives, and only to prevent disease, not pregnancy.

The convoluted contraceptive conundrum roiling Filipinos in public deliberations and online discussions is getting curiouser. The Pope’s latest statements, despite carefully crafting, were predictably mauled in transmission. Certainly, he never said condoms are now allowed under church law. Indeed, he still considered their use “evil,” though a lesser one than spreading life-threatening sexually transmitted disease (STD).

Here is what the Pope wrote in his latest book, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times: “. . . there may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, to re-develop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes” The Pontiff added: “In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality.”

If one may deconstruct his statements, Benedict seems to be saying that in certain (not all) instances for some (not all) individuals, using condoms to prevent infection can be “a first step” toward responsible, upright sexuality. But it is not yet there, and for certain condom users like prostitutes and adulterers, their sexual activity is many miles away from moral, loving intimacy. Moreover, the Pope cited “the understanding that not everything is permitted”—a phrase dropped from most news reports on his book.

In the murder analogy opening this article, killing swiftly and painlessly rather than letting victims suffer, might be a microscopic first step toward respect for life and caring for others. But assassins, like prostitutes and adulterers, must stop their dehumanizing, immoral and harmful actions altogether for them to embrace righteousness in the eyes of God and the Church, even if certain acts may mitigate the evil these sinners do.

It is pretty much the same point on AIDS prevention: using condoms to reduce the risk of infection, can set a person moving toward blessed intimacy. But that morally upright end is still miles away, particularly for men and women who do not accord to sex the divine purpose of procreation and love, but misuse it purely for pleasure or profit.

That spiritual perspective on sexuality is usually lost in anti-AIDS campaigns focused on condoms. Amid prophylactics samples and demos, is there any admonition to avoid promiscuity—the leading culprit in the spread of STDs?

Such strong messaging is indispensable, especially in a world where casual sex is publicized, glamorized and, worst, routinized in celebrity lifestyles, mass media and the Internet. There ought to be a law for all such entertainment fare to carry a government warning that casual sex could be hazardous to one’s health.

Plainly, if the campaign to contain AIDS is focused on condoms with little, if any, persuasive messages on responsible sexuality, the epidemic would continue, along with unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Look at America and, nearby, Thailand, with some 80,000 AIDS sufferers (Philippines: fewer than 10,000. That may be why Benedict said during his visit to Africa in March last year that the continent’s AIDS tragedy “cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.”

Part of that statement may now be somewhat modified with the Pope’s admission that condoms lower infection risk for individuals (though not necessarily for a whole populace as the main anti-AIDS strategy).
Will the Church position on contraceptives now adjust too? Are there instances when their use could be justified?

For instance, would a wife be allowed to take the pill if her husband obstinately refuses any kind of family planning? In such cases, would artificial female birth control be preferable to pregnancy year after year, constant quarreling, possible infidelity due to refusal to have sex, or marital separation?

Is it time to revisit the contraception doctrine in an international conference like the one called by Pope John 23rd in the 1960s, whose liberal recommendations were rejected by John’s successor Paul 6th? One reality the Vatican must have known for decades is that despite the latter’s Humanae vitae encyclical, countless Catholics use artificial birth control.

John Paul 1st, who reigned for just months before his famous successor’s pontificate, was said to favor allowing contraceptives. He once said there was the confessional for those having difficulty with the prohibition. Maybe the Church is now ready to offer family planning spouses more than just repeated absolution.

Catholic couples have long been allowed intimacy without procreation. Rome forbids only artificial, not natural, contraception. But if man-made remedies are permitted to delay when God calls a soul from this world, why can’t artificial means be allowed to defer when He brings a life into it? –RICARDO SALUDO, Manila Times

Ricardo Saludo heads the Center for Strategy, Enterprise and Intelligence ( ric.saludo@censeisolutions.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ). He holds a M.S. in Public Policy and Management from London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.